On February 28, 1844, a group of dignitaries including President John Tyler, Secs. Abel Upshur and Thomas Gilmer, and Dolly Madison were hosted aboard the USS Princeton. During a highly-touted demonstration, one of the guns exploded, killing seven, including both of the above-mentioned Secretaries. President Tyler was not in attendance at this demonstration -- but what if he had been?
First, the succession of the office -- the third president in a single term, I might add -- would pass to House Speaker John Winston Jones, a man about which I know absolutely nothing, especially regarding the issue of Texan annexation, which is the real topic I'm interested in.
Does the loss of Tyler prevent Texan annexation from being introduced as an issue in the 1844 election? I am under the impression that it was largely Tyler's impetus that made it an issue by the time it became one. I'm imagining that President Jones might simply not want to press his luck, especially if he seeks to run for his own term (which would pit him against Martin Van Buren for the Democratic nomination, a race I can't especially see him winning). Either way, it may still end up being a remarkably interesting nomination battle if he *does* choose to run -- a sitting accidental president against Van Buren against Lewis Cass. I tend to think Jones would sit it out and quietly retire, and Van Buren would have no difficulty securing the nomination, which means that Polk doesn't.
So no Tyler means no forced-through Annexation in the last moments of his administration. No Polk means no viciously-expansionist president staring down a war with Mexico while simultaneously trying to resolve Oregon once and for all. A re-elected Van Buren -- I can't see Henry Clay winning in 1844 -- would be a *very* different president than Polk, under very different circumstances.
So let's think longer term here.
No Polk, no Texas, no Mexican War -- the Missouri Compromise may not break down. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that Mexico would be a poison to the United States, inflaming the slavery issue beyond its ability to be solved. So does the lack of significant territorial gains in this period prevent or delay the Civil War?
Without new territory south of the Compromise line, slavery is hemmed into its existing states. The increasingly-isolated Slave South may start to get panicky, but when does that happen? I know there had been agitation for expansion for some time, but much of that was directed at Cuba. All the while, Van Buren ain't exactly on the bandwagon for expansion, and he's certainly no Polk. So where does this go? Does this merely *delay* the Annexation and the Mexican War for another four or eight years, until such a time as a good expansionist comes into office? But without Tyler to force the issue, even if a Vice-President Polk succeeds Van Buren, that doesn't guarantee he'll do much beyond trying to resolve Oregon.
I wonder. If there's no death on the Princeton, do we have any Manifest Destiny at all? Van Buren, IIRC, was big about focusing on improving and consolidating the existing national territory. His continued influence, still based on his status as the successor to Jackson, might have a very profound influence on the national mood regarding expansion. Especially without a Mexican War, without the sudden increase in the territory, we may simply not get that expansionist impetus spreading beyond a panicky South.
Of course, as the South grows isolated, they might try to get legislation passed which would allow for slavery to expand into the territories north of the Compromise line. How does that battle proceed, and what are the consequences for success or failure?